PDA

View Full Version : Battle Missions first impressions



enigma-96
07-03-2010, 08:44
Hello Warseer just thought I'd give you my first impressions of the new Battle Missions book and maybe help you on the fencers decide whether or not to throwdown soem paper for it.
- For starters let me just state right now that
A) I haven't played every mission, nor am I likely to within the next month or more, and has such my review of the missions is basically theory hammer
B) I understand that their are those who can make up their own missions without the need for a book but having an "Official" ruleset makes it easier to get a pick up game and thus the missions are reviewed in their unedited state.

Cover art and Art 10/10
As usual for GW the art in this book is fan-fricken-tastic! and shows some very awesome battle scenes. Heck even the mission deployment pictures are very crips pleasing to look at. The downside, their isn't more :D.

Fluff/Story Elements 8/10
Again everything is pretty par for the course but their is two kinda glaring issues with the given fluff. Their is WAY too little for this kinda supplemental book which should have had a lot more considering the missions, both the good and bad ones, wouldn't take much time at all to conceive. Secondly the fluff is kinda obvious in that what is given can, mostly, be inferred from reading the fluff of one's own codex, though this might be my military mind be nit picky, I must emphasize though that this doesn't apply to all race's fluff just the more conventional ones.

Rules 7/10
Their are a LOT of hit and misses in this book which is a shame because the hits are outstanding examples of fluffy and fun battles, too bad the misses range from "What's the point of this?" too "Lol Fail". Even worse is that the hit and misses aren't evenly distributed across the races, which would have been acceptable, but tend to pool up in some areas and are non-existant in others.

Since the missions are so varied I believe that it would be best to review each race's selection so that if you are getting it mainly for your race's missions you can be better informed. Note that when I mention standard missions I am being subjective in that I'm looking for a little more than a slightly different deployment and special rules.

Chaos: 5/6
Pillage: Simple but very unique and looks to be loads of fun, complaints: THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SPECIAL MISSION! <---------- lol nerdrage

Black Crusade: Sigh an almost standard mission with a special rule that is repeated elsewhere in the book and doesn't really spice things up that much.

Scorched Earth: Another simple one but with a twist that does change things up enough to make it fun and tactically amusing.

Chaos Daemons: 3/6
Night Fight: :wtf: Another standard mission that's only special rules nerf the opponent and aid the Daemons.... sigh

Invasion: I'm very torn on this one as I think it is very unique and would be a blast to play but it is GROSSLY imbalanced in favor of the daemons to the point that their might be those who wouldn't play it just for that.

Fight to the Death: Hmmmmmm very very simple and occurs in some people's standard games all too often ;), but I find it to be good enough that it did deserve to make it into the book, barely though.

Dark Eldar: 5/6
Dawn Raid: A decent mission that portrays the strengths and weaknesses of the DE well and does look like it would be fun for both sides, and balanced too boot though at first glance it does appear desceptively imbalanced.

Slave Raid: A KP mission with a fluffy twist that does make it different and fun to play, especially for the DE, though I do wish they had made the prisoner mechanic only work for the DE and have another one for the enemy.

Feigned Retreat: Ummmmmm :wtf: A standard KP mission with the only exception being that the DE start with 2 units in the middle of the board, wow depending on the army build that could totally screw over one or the other right from the start, plus the mission itself isn't very amusing.

Eldar: 2.5/6
Pre-emptive Strike: A simple but effective KP mission that uses varied KP values to get a good effect going that makes the missions stand out from the standard one. Still kinda boring compared to some of the other missions in the book

Flank Attack: Wow another simple but effective mission, this time with objectives, that stands out from the standard mission, but just like the above is kinda boring in the context of the book. Pretty imbalanced in favor of mech eldar.

Mobile Defense: WTF A standard objective mission where the only difference completely @%&#s the Eldar.... wow.

Imperial Guard: 3.5/6
Prepared Assault: An objective mission greatly skewed in the enemy's favor that has an interesting but completely retarded rule mechanic. Fail on an epic level.

War of Attrition: A VP, that's right folks VP, mission that is pretty clever and is very representative of the Guard in general, I think I'll enjoy playing this with my buddy a great deal.

Trench Warfare: A fluffy but kinda drab mission that really should have been mixed with War of Attrition and replaced with something else, oh well it is acceptable unlike prepared assault.

Necrons: 4.5/6
Ambush: A pretty interesting mission that sees the Necrons getting to pull off some serious tom foolery :D. Pretty good overall.

Recconnaisance in Force: Another pretty interesting mission giving the Necrons a chance to pull some deployment tom foolery. Again another good one overall.

Implacable Advance: A standard mission saved by a clever rule that balances the match while making it fair for the Necrons.

Orks: 4/6
Blitzkrieg: A strange mission that does have some uniqueness to it but looks like it would be fairly boring due to the deployment rules, UNLESS EVERY UNIT was fast attack or took fast transports/ normal transports than it would be decent, I guess.

WAAAGH!: Good for some ORKY shenanigans but is deceptively shallow when you realize how minor WAAAGH, the rule, is for Orks.

Cut and Run: Lol this one is really neat and will definately be a fave of mine for months too come due to its cool KP and Reserves rules.

Space Marines: 3/6
Vanguard: An altered objective mission that HEAVILY favors the marines... though it is pretty fluffy.

Surprise Attack: A fluffy KP mission that HEAVILY favors the marines... I'm starting to see a pattern here.

All Round Defense: A very fluff mission that is, gasp!, balanced and still looks to be very fun.

Tau: 3/6
Vertical Envelopment: A standard KP mission with a strange special rule that could screw one team or the either completely depending on the army builds.

Counter-Attack: A standard KP mission that STRONGLY favors the Tau.

Fighting Withdrawal: A fluffy objective mission that somewhat favors that Tau, though one could argue that it doesn't based on how one views Tau tactics.

Tyranids: 6/6
First Contact: WOW this one is pretty damn cool and I imagine will be quite the hoot amongst many gamers, though due to the rules 1500 points is the bare minimum needed to get the full effect of this mission.

Wave Assault: WOW another awesome mission that is both fluffy and looks to be pretty amusing.

Infestation: Damn these bugs are on fire with this book! Arguably the worst of all three but still pretty good compared to most of the other missions.

Special Missions: 5/6
Kill Team: Contender for the most unique mission in the book and easily in the top 3 of the funnest. My only complaint is that it is VERY abusable and is definately not suitable for tournament style 'take all comers kill teams'.

Linebreaker: Seriously WTF, it's basically a small Apoc game mixed with a battle report, more or less, I honestly think this has no business being in the book at all.

Clash of Heroes: A very solid mission that plays up all those Special Characters' and their fluff to the EXTREME! :evilgrin: Should be good for a laugh once in a while but just like Kill Team is VERY abusable. Note: No Avatars... it's for your own safety.

Overall: 7/10
It's a pretty decent supplement but I found it to be kind of 'MEH', though maybe that's because I wanted it to be so much more. The lack of Inq is really rude to those players and the lack of missions for marine subset chapters is also kinda rude, though understandable. Overall I think they had a great idea but they didn't have the drive, or maybe the talent who knows?, to raise it up to an A+, a shame really when you realize the potential.

My advice would be to use the store copy if you play any army with a combined score of 4 or less and to definately get the book if your score is 5 or more (Since they did due your army justice). Obviously if your LGS doesn't have a copy I would suggest one copy per group of players.

Tae
07-03-2010, 08:57
Having read he book several times I cannot help but think they have missed a golden oppertunity to really change games of 40k.

A lot of the missions in the book are simply KP missions with different deployment types or included USRs. They could have done so much more! Give different victory conditions for something - like models crossing the board or something. There are a couple of missions which do things like this (such as the C:SM and Necron one) but most are based around the (inherently flawed, imo) mechanic of KP, which is a shame.

yabbadabba
07-03-2010, 09:14
Having read he book several times I cannot help but think they have missed a golden oppertunity to really change games of 40k.

A lot of the missions in the book are simply KP missions with different deployment types or included USRs. They could have done so much more! Give different victory conditions for something - like models crossing the board or something. There are a couple of missions which do things like this (such as the C:SM and Necron one) but most are based around the (inherently flawed, imo) mechanic of KP, which is a shame. Thats because they would have to have supported the core rules of 40K. While KPs are here, thats what will be used. I cant see the GW Design Studio producing a sellable product that doesn't support a core rule set.

TBH, nobody really needs this book. This is great for beginners but for a group of players who have been into the game for a little while, they should be able to design a variety of scenarios anyway.

I think an author called Charles Stewart Grant produced some ace books on scenarios for wargamers; you can get them from Amazon. As they are generic scenarios you don't need GW's KP system.

stainawarjar
07-03-2010, 09:54
I don't really see much incentive to sticking to your army missions in this books... Except for a glitch here or there all the missions work well with all armies (You really don't want to see Tyranids as attackers in a Black Crusade though), so just roll that D66

Tae
07-03-2010, 10:11
Thats because they would have to have supported the core rules of 40K. While KPs are here, thats what will be used. I cant see the GW Design Studio producing a sellable product that doesn't support a core rule set.

You mean in the way that Planetstrike and Apocalypse both use KPs to determine the winner .... oh wait :p

Whilst a completely new mechanic of victory would be a breth of fresh air, even some more objective missios would have been nice to see. Unfortunately with a couple of exceptions, almost all the new missions seem to revolve around KPs, which screw/benefit certain armies.

And sure more veteran guys probably can come up with our own scenarios but, personally speaking, I find more enjoyment by playing 'by the book' then I do from making my own missions up.

yabbadabba
07-03-2010, 10:21
And sure more veteran guys probably can come up with our own scenarios but, personally speaking, I find more enjoyment by playing 'by the book' then I do from making my own missions up. TBH I haven't looked at Planetstrike, and I haven't got my Apocalypse book out in an age, so I stand corrected.

It still doesn't change the fact that if its a standard GW game, GW will have to support the BRB. Apocalypse is way, way out of the BRB's ability to cope with. I am not sure about Planetstrike.

I cannot just stop with the book. They are often so, so limited in terms of scope of what can be achieved with these games. I know if you are playing lots of pick up games or are a tournament player, then you have no choice, but since the early days GW have always pitched their rules as the start, and not the be all and end all for gamers. They may have to stick to their products but we don't have to. A quick look at this book says that if I was to get this, it would be a start but not a completed product for me and those I play with. Still, each to their own.

enigma-96
07-03-2010, 10:28
Ummmm Tae before you post could you get your facts straight buddy their are 3 more Objective based missions than their are KP ones, which is a lot considering the 'KP' ones include quite a few that don't even use KP as a victory condition. So yeah someone pulled a fast one on ya if that's what you were told. :)

BBWags
07-03-2010, 10:47
I was very disappointed with this book. Granted, there are a few missions that are pretty cool, but most of them are standard missions with a very simple difference, whether it is deployment or required units starting on/off the board. Those are the kinds of simple differences that I don't think we need GW to suggest to us. We have those covered ourselves. What I was hoping for was missions that had different goals for each army, especially because they are advertised as army-specific. The best example, as mentioned above, is the dark eldar prisoner snatch mission. As it stands now, the concept is cool, but its the same objective for both sides? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And yes, we can come up with our own missions, but if they are going to do a battle missions book anyway, it'd be nice to have one that has some intricacies/complexity to it that while yes, we COULD have come up with it ourselves, that if GW is doing it, we can be pretty sure of its quality and fairness to the armies involved.

The biggest disappointment is kill team for me. Yeah, its a nice twist to the normal missions, an unusual point total, much varied FOC, etc, but it is COMPLETELY different from the original. The original was story-based and almost roleplayer-ish. The whole idea of infiltrating the enemy camp for whatever reason was set before you was great. The mechanics, while clunky in some ways, made it a completely different game from standard 40k. But now its just a small version of the main game, seemingly for the sake of time. And we know how to change points-limits on games all by ourselves.

As a result, my gaming group is looking at revamping the old kill-team rules to make it compatible with 5th edition and going that way.

Just my take.

wazatdingder
07-03-2010, 13:42
Special Missions: 5/6
Kill Team: Contender for the most unique mission in the book and easily in the top 3 of the funnest. My only complaint is that it is VERY abusable and is definately not suitable for tournament style 'take all comers kill teams'.


How is a 200pt game abusable?:confused:

Ideas for creating a league and tourny out of it have been floating in my head since I got it.

The most broken thing I can think would be to take a dread and even that's not totally broken. Most MC's are HQ or Heavy. Doom would suck, but he's not unbeatable. I would love to take my 50 grot force against any force that was at least 1/2 foot troops. 5 termies, bring it on! I gotta kill 3 and just hold out a few turns, it would take you 5 turns of flawless killing to get 1/2 of me.:evilgrin:

Panzer MkIV
07-03-2010, 13:46
I don't plan to buy the Battle Misions book as I still have the 3rd/4th edition as a means to get some very different senarios

jt.glass
07-03-2010, 14:16
Space Marines: 3/6
Vanguard: An altered objective mission that HEAVILY favors the marines... though it is pretty fluffy.This is the one that purports to allow you to take a Thunderhawk in a normal-ish game. I wondered when I saw it in Rumours how they would adress the fact that you have already have picked your army by the time you get to the mission...the answer is "not at all" AFAICT!


You mean in the way that Planetstrike and Apocalypse both use KPs to determine the winner .... oh wait :pOne of the Planetstrike missions (I can't remember the name -my book is out on loan) does use KP.


Whilst a completely new mechanic of victory would be a breth of fresh air, even some more objective missios would have been nice to see. Unfortunately with a couple of exceptions, almost all the new missions seem to revolve around KPsBy my quick count, 10 of the 30 new "normal" missions use KP -hardly "most". Most do More that KP do in fact use objective markers, with a hand full of more original victory conditions -oh and one that is VP (more or less).


As a result, my gaming group is looking at revamping the old kill-team rules to make it compatible with 5th edition and going that way.When you do, post it in Rules Development!

------------------------------------

Anyway, with the nitpicking out of the way, my thoughts at first glance:

The balance is about what you'd expect from GW, ie not great, although none of the missions seem to screw anyone as badly a codex mismatches do already (with the possible exception of a couple of the Daemon ones).

Unlike some, I don't dislike KP as it stands, and I have long been a proponent variable numbers of KP by slot, which several of the missions us (although I wish they'd used them more and also with more dramatic differences).

OTOH, I do normally hate VPs as a mechanic, but it seems to suit the IG somehow.

I agree that Slave Raid should have had different victory conditions for the enemy player, and indeed more assymetric missions egenerally would have been good.

It is also annoying that without some houseruling, you can't actually use the Thunderhawk in the Vanguard mission without some houseruling (or it would be, if I could actually afford a Thunderhawk).

In conclusion, it is not as good as it could have been, but is about as good as I expected it to be. My group is in the process of re-writing and expending the BRB missions, and if that works out as we hope we'll probably do the same for this book.


jt.

Murrithius
07-03-2010, 14:20
How is a 200pt game abusable?:confused:

Ideas for creating a league and tourny out of it have been floating in my head since I got it.

The most broken thing I can think would be to take a dread and even that's not totally broken. Most MC's are HQ or Heavy. Doom would suck, but he's not unbeatable. I would love to take my 50 grot force against any force that was at least 1/2 foot troops. 5 termies, bring it on! I gotta kill 3 and just hold out a few turns, it would take you 5 turns of flawless killing to get 1/2 of me.:evilgrin:

I think you just answered your own question there. Kill teams is meant to be a bit of a laugh between a couple of players whilst creating a bit of a narrative game. Not a chance to make a 200pt tourney list just to be awkward.

Sorros
07-03-2010, 14:32
I agree that the space marine surprise assault mission is pretty retarded. I played it myself as Eldar, got wrecked w/o cover saves or fortune.

jt.glass
07-03-2010, 14:42
I agree that the space marine surprise assault mission is pretty retarded. I played it myself as Eldar, got wrecked w/o cover saves or fortune.How does it prevent you getting cover saves or using fortune? :confused:


jt.

x2wyckedx
07-03-2010, 14:58
I think the book sucks. I was really excited for it.

jason_sation
07-03-2010, 16:36
Quick question. You mention that some of the missions really seem to favor one army vs. another. Do all of the missions have equal number of points for each side? I'd be interested if there was a mission where one side had a definite advantage, but only half or a third of the points to spend.

jt.glass
07-03-2010, 16:51
Quick question. You mention that some of the missions really seem to favor one army vs. another. Do all of the missions have equal number of points for each side? I'd be interested if there was a mission where one side had a definite advantage, but only half or a third of the points to spend.As I mentioned above with regard to the t-hawk issue, you pick your army before you pick mission, so there isn't really any scope for altering points totals.


jt.

TheMav80
07-03-2010, 17:53
I really like the book.

I think all the missions are neat, and it's not like the race specific ones cannot be used for other armies.

I really don't care if some of the missions are slightly more in favor of one army or another. Just part of the fun.

Lord Damocles
07-03-2010, 18:08
I think I'd agree with the overall 7/10 rating.

My only real complaints are that:
- Quite a few of the missions are just Kill Points (or the slightly modified Kill Points) or Objective missions with slightly different deployment setups.
- Would it really have been that hard to include Daemonhunters/Witch Hunters missions?
- The stupid typo on the mission generation page (33 in place of 23 IIRC) :rolleyes:

djinn8
07-03-2010, 18:27
I guess the reason they left =I= missions out is two fold. First they wanted a round number of missions (30 race specific) and secondly the =I= have their unique missions in their codexes.

MistaGav
07-03-2010, 18:41
I'd have to aggree with the 7/10 rating. The missions do seem like copy and paste variations of each other but with some changes in deployment and rules.
Seems like they had a good opportunity to get creative but instead we are left with small changes and the usual statement at the back saying 'hey if all these arn't enough then why not try making your own' Yea well done captain obvious we've only been doing that since god knows how long as you are incapable!

The big one for me is Kill team, they could have delved into that a ton more but it's pretty flat now. No brutes, bosses etc just a small group of elites vs another small group of elites...just like every other flipping game that exists in the god damn game!!!

I agree on the Linebreaker one, seems like a total pointless addition really in an attempt to fill. I'm sure when Apoc came out someone, somewhere thought of this idea. That space marine one with the Thawk is a bit pointless, why include a rule for a model which is incredibly rare?!

yabbadabba
07-03-2010, 19:08
The big one for me is Kill team, they could have delved into that a ton more but it's pretty flat now. No brutes, bosses etc just a small group of elites vs another small group of elites...just like every other flipping game that exists in the god damn game!!!
And thats the whole point. GW want people playing 40K, not a 40K version of Necromunda. Just a thought but something tells me that Kill Team is a scenario and not an alternate version of the game?

Sons of Alaitoc v.2
07-03-2010, 20:14
I seem to be quite well off I have Orks and Tyranids, whose missions seem really good

But...my main army is Eldar

jt.glass
07-03-2010, 20:27
the =I= have their unique missions in their codexes.So do Necrons, but they got missions in the book.


jt.

Grimbad
07-03-2010, 20:32
I thought the art was pretty boring, really. Ever since 5th edition the staged photography is comically bad, with many models facing the camera instead of the enemy. See the chaos guys in the bottom right of the chaos vs blood angels photo inside the back cover- what the hell are they doing? Or the black templars surrounded by tyranids, but only facing the ones towards the camera, even though there's a fricking carnifex in base contact with them. Granted, this effect has become less noticeable since the 5th edition rulebook. Aside from the cover painting there's no real art, just maps, which are pretty unconvincing photoshop work. And occasional vignettes from the codices.
The missions are okay. Kill team actually looks good to me, but I'd have preferred a whole book of rules sets that different from regular 40k. Kill team, combat patrol, etc, each with several scenarios unique to that kind of game (including some 4th Ed. style missions for kill team).

Rick Blaine
07-03-2010, 21:44
I was very disappointed with this book. Granted, there are a few missions that are pretty cool, but most of them are standard missions with a very simple difference, whether it is deployment or required units starting on/off the board. Those are the kinds of simple differences that I don't think we need GW to suggest to us. We have those covered ourselves. What I was hoping for was missions that had different goals for each army, especially because they are advertised as army-specific. The best example, as mentioned above, is the dark eldar prisoner snatch mission. As it stands now, the concept is cool, but its the same objective for both sides? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Agreed. The slave raid mission ruined it for me. Not that the rest are much better, just slight variations of the basic missions. I give this book 3/10 overall.

Count de Monet
07-03-2010, 21:46
Here's my run-down:

Part 1:http://sonsoftaurus.blogspot.com/2010/03/battle-missions-review-part-1-general.html

Part 2: http://sonsoftaurus.blogspot.com/2010/03/battle-missions-review-part-2-mission.html

Part 3: http://sonsoftaurus.blogspot.com/2010/03/battle-missions-review-part-3-special.html

MistaGav
07-03-2010, 22:08
I thought the art was pretty boring, really. Ever since 5th edition the staged photography is comically bad, with many models facing the camera instead of the enemy. See the chaos guys in the bottom right of the chaos vs blood angels photo inside the back cover- what the hell are they doing? Or the black templars surrounded by tyranids, but only facing the ones towards the camera, even though there's a fricking carnifex in base contact with them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw the horrid photography they use now, another example in this book is in the first cover with the AOBR, every model is posed so they show their 'best side' towards the camera. It sort of makes it look like they are side stepping towards each other! There's little to no originality in them either, it's usually from a 45 degree angle and has the same boring units in some sort of 'face off' and as typical using the studio models. I know it's nit picking but as I study photography it would be nice to see whoever is paid to take the photos take a few risks here and there, some nice model viewpoints can make much more dramatic scenes than X meets Y...

Corrode
07-03-2010, 22:29
This is the one that purports to allow you to take a Thunderhawk in a normal-ish game. I wondered when I saw it in Rumours how they would adress the fact that you have already have picked your army by the time you get to the mission...the answer is "not at all" AFAICT!

Do we actually need RAW on this one? The expansions are all 'fun' supplements, and if your gaming group can't agree to accomodate the Thunderhawk somehow then I'd say they have the wrong idea. Sure, it's annoying, but it's not exactly a difficult thing to work around.


I agree on the Linebreaker one, seems like a total pointless addition really in an attempt to fill. I'm sure when Apoc came out someone, somewhere thought of this idea. That space marine one with the Thawk is a bit pointless, why include a rule for a model which is incredibly rare?!

Would you rather not have them? At the end of the day they could have put something else in there, but chose not to; a lot of the replies on this thread are almost resentful that the missions were included at all. Sure, something better might have been put in, but it wasn't, so simply saying 'well I don't think it should be in the book!!' seems a bit pointless.

ce13
08-03-2010, 00:18
Just played my first game out of the book. My Orks vs Imperial Guard, with the "War of Attrition" mission. Not an easy fight for the guard at all with an assault list already starting off half way up the field. Sure he popped vehicles fairly quickly but who cares, I'm already where I wanted them to take me too lol. That and with 20 strong mobs coming back I just walked through any reserves that the guard brought back on. Seemed a little unbalanced, but that's only one mission out of the main 30, only time will tell.

I do like that there are a whole bunch more ideas for games, sure they aren't all that different for the most part then the standard games, but that might be a good thing. The last thing we should have wanted was a bunch of crazy missions that have a bunch of pre-planning required and unique builds necessary to play them. At least this is an expansion that can be easily integrated into games with out buying entire new armies.

AlmightyNocturnus
08-03-2010, 00:26
I`ll buck the trend and say I actually like the Battle Missions book. It`s got some glitches (one of the Daemon missions doesn`t reveal where the opponent`s table edge is), but overall it`s very "adoptable" (not "adaptable") and I`m sure our wargaming group will make a lot of use of it. My biggest fear was that the book would have radically different missions that would require players to prepare several different lists beforehand, specialized units, etc. (an then it would go the way of Cities of Death and Planet Strike). But the subtle changes to the standard three missions don`t require any list tweaking for the most part (excepting the three special missions at the back of the book) and so it`s easy for our gaming group to just start using it. I give it 9 out of 10 stars (-1 for the crazy Baneblade mission and some errors here and there).

Almighty Nocturnus

DarkstarSabre
08-03-2010, 06:12
How is a 200pt game abusable?:confused:

Ideas for creating a league and tourny out of it have been floating in my head since I got it.

The most broken thing I can think would be to take a dread and even that's not totally broken. Most MC's are HQ or Heavy. Doom would suck, but he's not unbeatable. I would love to take my 50 grot force against any force that was at least 1/2 foot troops. 5 termies, bring it on! I gotta kill 3 and just hold out a few turns, it would take you 5 turns of flawless killing to get 1/2 of me.:evilgrin:

Or the Doom.

Hey, 50 grots. Take Ld tests on 3d6!

Hoodwink
08-03-2010, 06:18
50 grots would die quite horribly to the Doom. He's pretty much expected to have 10 wounds against them after every shooting phase if they get him in CC. Grots are rolling 3d6 for Ld every shooting phase, not just the Nid player's turn. Then if you run, boom, S10 large template for extra gibbiness.

warchild9
08-03-2010, 07:21
I guess the reason they left =I= missions out is two fold. First they wanted a round number of missions (30 race specific) and secondly the =I= have their unique missions in their codexes.


then explain why =I= have been left out most of the other books (apoc, PS ETC)

Baneboss
08-03-2010, 07:47
I really like the book so far. I have rarely played 5th edition recently (or in the last year) but this book spinned me in the right direction. I dont really mind some missions being a little imbalanced in favour of some army - after all some people are forgetting here theyre not primary about balance. I would even say that most missions would be even more diverse if GW didnt try to give them a feeling of balance. Those missions are fun but some could have more and better rules. Overall i am very pleased.

Baragash
08-03-2010, 08:42
As I mentioned above with regard to the t-hawk issue, you pick your army before you pick mission, so there isn't really any scope for altering points totals.


jt.

One of the options for playing the scenarios (and even if it wasn't, the players could agree anyway) is to choose the mission before picking armies.

jt.glass
08-03-2010, 09:08
Do we actually need RAW on this one? The expansions are all 'fun' supplements, and if your gaming group can't agree to accomodate the Thunderhawk somehow then I'd say they have the wrong idea. Sure, it's annoying, but it's not exactly a difficult thing to work around.I've never understood the idea that seems to pervade both here and GW's design studio that well thought-out and well-written rules are somehow incompatible with fun.

With my own gaming group, I don't really mind that I don't that there are a few flaws to fix, as I am an inveterate tinkerer anyway. But if I was playing a pickup game against someone I didn't (which isn't really something I do at the moment, but who knows what the future holds), then the thunderhawk paragraph is so much wasted ink.

If I'd shelled out nearly 400 notes for a thunderhawk (and as a marine player with poor impulse control, I will eventually), I'd want to use it as often as possible. This mission would be ideal for that, if it wasn't flawed!

Anyway, I don't think we actually disagree on this. You said yourself it's annoying, which is really all I was saying.


jt.

yabbadabba
08-03-2010, 09:37
If I'd shelled out nearly 500 notes for a thunderhawk (and as a marine player with poor impulse control, I will eventually), I'd want to use it as often as possible. This mission would be ideal for that, if it wasn't flawed! If you had bought a Thunderhawk for playing with then this supplement isn't really for you. As there are no formal rules for a THawk in 40K apart from FW's house rules, then you are looking at playing games beyond the scope of 40K anyway. Makes this supplement superfluous in such an environment.

Corrode
08-03-2010, 09:37
I've never understood the idea that seems to pervade both here and GW's design studio that well thought-out and well-written rules are somehow incompatible with fun.

With my own gaming group, I don't really mind that I don't that there are a few flaws to fix, as I am an inveterate tinkerer anyway. But if I was playing a pickup game against someone I didn't (which isn't really something I do at the moment, but who knows what the future holds), then the thunderhawk paragraph is so much wasted ink.

If I'd shelled out nearly 500 notes for a thunderhawk (and as a marine player with poor impulse control, I will eventually), I'd want to use it as often as possible. This mission would be ideal for that, if it wasn't flawed!

Anyway, I don't think we actually disagree on this. You said yourself it's annoying, which is really all I was saying.


jt.

I certainly agree that well-written rules would be an improvement, and I've never understood why GW seems to think that doing it badly is not only excusable but actually better than writing them well.

That said, there was no need for the Thunderhawk to be included in the first place - it was put in for a bit of variety, nothing else. It's honestly as difficult as saying 'so if we roll Vanguard can I use my Thunderhawk list instead?', which in any reasonable gaming group (the kind that wouldn't cry about a Thunderhawk in a 1500pt game in the first place!) should go over. I mean, I can understand the frustration, but it's not like it's an important bit of the main rules which completely changes how you play every game of 40k for an entire edition.

I'll also add the caveat that the expansions aren't really designed for pick-up games around a store so much as they are for a regular gaming group which already knows each other - refer Apocalypse, which requires an army of a size most players probably don't carry around ready for a pick-up game, or CoD/Planetstrike which require quite a lot of very particular terrain. Sure, Battle Missions is more general (and the point kinda is that you don't need a ton of extra crap just to play it), but it's still not really intended that you just rock up to someone in a store and go 'so hey, let's play this particular specialised mission in which I use an extremely rare and expensive piece of Forge World kit'.

Hellebore, as regards your point about having 30 missions exactly - it's so the D66 random generation system works. I mean, GW can't ever admit there's dice other than D6s available (otherwise people might ask why 40k doesn't use D10s despite its massive stat variance!)

Occulto
08-03-2010, 09:47
I mean, GW can't ever admit there's dice other than D6s available (otherwise people might ask why 40k doesn't use D10s despite its massive stat variance!)

I've got a nice big book called Inquisitor that uses d10s. :p

Mind you, I can count on one hand the number of stores locally where I can actually buy them. (Not bad for a city of 1.25 million people)

d6s on the other hand? You can even buy 'em at dingy 24 hour convenience stores.

Corrode
08-03-2010, 09:50
I've got a nice big book called Inquisitor that uses d10s. :p

Mind you, I can count on one hand the number of stores locally where I can actually buy them. (Not bad for a city of 1.25 million people)

d6s on the other hand? You can even buy 'em at dingy 24 hour convenience stores.

I'd forgotten about Inquisitor. In any case I wasn't being entirely serious, and I understand the reasons for sticking to D6s, but you can't get any hyperbole out of that now can you ;)

yabbadabba
08-03-2010, 09:52
I've got a nice big book called Inquisitor that uses d10s. :p And WFRPS and Dark Heresy. ;)

Mind you, I can count on one hand the number of stores locally where I can actually buy them. (Not bad for a city of 1.25 million people)
d6s on the other hand? You can even buy 'em at dingy 24 hour convenience stores. This is the whole reason for d6's. Their overhwelming availability compared to any other dice.

edit - dammit Corode, you're too quick lol!

Occulto
08-03-2010, 10:02
I'd forgotten about Inquisitor. In any case I wasn't being entirely serious, and I understand the reasons for sticking to D6s, but you can't get any hyperbole out of that now can you ;)

I figured. :p

Every now and then though, some bright spark figures it'd be oh so great if 40K moved over to d10s and I shudder.

I'm sure guys like Chessex pray for the day, but I'm quite happy with my cheap cubes of bad luck.

jt.glass
08-03-2010, 10:17
If you had bought a Thunderhawk for playing with then this supplement isn't really for you. As there are no formal rules for a THawk in 40K apart from FW's house rules, then you are looking at playing games beyond the scope of 40K anyway. Makes this supplement superfluous in such an environment.Forgeworld is GW: There stuff is not "houserules". Not that that matters, because the rules for the Thunderhawk are in Apocalypse, which is normal GW not Forgeworld!

In any case, I realise that one mission out of 33, allowing the thunderhawk is not the point of the book, so I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion that the book is not for me based on that. It is just annoying that it is actually 0 missions out of 33!

It's not a deal breaker -despite having a few minor complaints, I was actually defending the book against its harsher critics, for the most part.


jt.

Corrode
08-03-2010, 10:19
edit - dammit Corode, you're too quick lol!

That's what my missus... actually, let's not go down that route.

jt.glass, all the Forge World rules are treated as 'house rules' and all carry the clause about opponent's-consent. That doesn't change anything for the Thunderhawk (which has GW-rules, which they helpfully point us towards!) but it's a point worth bearing in mind.

yabbadabba
08-03-2010, 10:29
Forgeworld is GW: There stuff is not "houserules". Not that that matters, because the rules for the Thunderhawk are in Apocalypse, which is normal GW not Forgeworld![/QUOTE No, FW is a model-making part of GW that has written its own rules in order to encourage its sales. It has nothing to do with the GW design studio. Its rules for its products are not allowed at UKGWGT's as they are seen as unofficial rules. As for the Apocalypse rules, they are for games that lay outside of the ability of 40K to play. Otherwise we would be allowed to have flyers at al at GT's. I am not a tournament player in any way shape, or form but GW have made it quite clear that what they allow in the GT's is what they see as officially recognised 40K rules and mechanisms.

[QUOTE=jt.glass;4462433]In any case, I realise that one mission out of 33, allowing the thunderhawk is not the point of the book, so I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion that the book is not for me based on that. It is just annoying that it is actually 0 missions out of 33! I am saying that if someone has bought a T Hawk and intends to use it, they are distorting how 40K can cope as a rule system anyway, and are happy using houserules (see above) so should be more than capable of designing their own scenarios and victory conditions. You only come into it by offering yourself up as an example of someone who "If I'd shelled out nearly 400 notes for a thunderhawk I'd want to use it as often as possible." as other comments in your post quite clearly state you dont have a T Hawk. Yet.


It's not a deal breaker -despite having a few minor complaints, I was actually defending the book against its harsher critics, for the most part. I know you were. I am just trying to suggest that maybe this book isn't aimed at everyone on Warsser or in the 40K community.

Corrode
08-03-2010, 10:36
Just FYI yabbadabba the Battle Missions book specifically directs you to the Apoc rules for Thunderhawks - the guy isn't just getting them off a website somewhere.

Sorros
08-03-2010, 10:39
How does it prevent you getting cover saves or using fortune? :confused:


jt.

Sorry for the lack of a response, hadn't noticed >.>

The enemy of the Marines must deploy 12" from each table edge, cannot reserve anything, and each unit must be 6" apart. Since psychic tests are done prior to movement, it means 6" powers cannot be cast on nearby units, only the Farseer's own (or himself, if he's not attached). This also means that some units will lack cover, just because it all must be deployed in that center. Coupled with the fact that the Marine player goes first and can come in on any side, it sort of screwed me over. I lost a good 400-500 points in one round of fire just as the enemy walked on and directed almost all of their fire on my council on bikes, as they had no fortune...

yabbadabba
08-03-2010, 10:44
Just FYI yabbadabba the Battle Missions book specifically directs you to the Apoc rules for Thunderhawks - the guy isn't just getting them off a website somewhere. I understand that.

jt.glass
08-03-2010, 11:15
jt.glass, all the Forge World rules are treated as 'house rules' and all carry the clause about opponent's-consent.In a sense, everything requires you opponents consent; you can't force anyone to play against you if they don't want to. But Forgeworld stuff requires no more consent than anything else (albeit that consent is perhaps less likely to be forthcoming).


No, FW is a model-making part of GW that has written its own rules in order to encourage its sales. It has nothing to do with the GW design studio. Its rules for its products are not allowed at UKGWGT's as they are seen as unofficial rules.When you get down to it, that description fit GW too. And tournaments having more restrictive rules is hardlt uncommon, and hardly proves anything about normal games.


As for the Apocalypse rules, they are for games that lay outside of the ability of 40K to play.Normally, yes. And yet two of the senarios in BM allow the use of superheavies (except one actually doesn't). I didn't put them in the book, GW did!


I am saying that if someone has bought a T Hawk and intends to use it, they are distorting how 40K can cope as a rule system anyway, and are happy using houserules (see above) so should be more than capable of designing their own scenarios and victory conditions.And I am happy designing my own scenarios and victory conditions. How does this alter the fact that if GW put rules in a book, they should damn well work?

When we get arround to it, Cheeslord and I will almost certainly re-write and expand Battle Missions. That doesn't in any way take away our right to point out annoyances with the books as it stands.


The enemy of the Marines must deploy 12" from each table edge, cannot reserve anything, and each unit must be 6" apart. Since psychic tests are done prior to movement, it means 6" powers cannot be cast on nearby units, only the Farseer's own (or himself, if he's not attached). This also means that some units will lack cover, just because it all must be deployed in that center. Coupled with the fact that the Marine player goes first and can come in on any side, it sort of screwed me over. I lost a good 400-500 points in one round of fire just as the enemy walked on and directed almost all of their fire on my council on bikes, as they had no fortune...Ah, I see. I must admit, I had missed the 6in appart thing ...that would make life interesting for footslogging orks and horde 'nids, one would think!


jt.

tsutek
08-03-2010, 11:38
I was excited about this book when I heard that Kill Teams is back. Bought the book on saturday, and my initial reactions are - severely dissappointed. There's so many holes left to fill after this that I'm going to have to "house rule" everything anyway..

It would have been really nice if they would have also given us a way to incorporate this book with Planetary Empires.

I hope there's going to be a FAQ for the Kill Teams rules soon - ATM, I can only fit a single model inside a building of any size :wtf: And that's just the tip of the iceberg I think, many more rules inconsistencies are bound to come up after playing KT a few times..

BTW, anyone want to buy my (almost mint) copy of Battle Missions at discount - Just PM me.

borginator
08-03-2010, 15:25
I played a First Contact and a bunch of kill team games and had a ton of fun.

First Contact was a really bloody game, we had 3000pt tyranids vs 3000 allied SW, guard and Tau (1000 pt each). The allied team won due to Nids coming in to lack of synapse.

The Kill team games were fun too fast and quick, we were able to get in about 4-5 of them, however I have to agree that you're going to have to house rule certain parts to mimic combat patrol. MC's and moderate armor like dread's are too much in a 200pt games. The other problem with Kill teams is that the newer codices seem to excel since they have more/cheaper options.

Imo, I think they should have re-released combat patrols as another general mission instead of line breaker. It's just an excuse for GW to sell more Baneblades.

Grax
08-03-2010, 16:14
Overall, it looks good, except for 3 missions that seem like trouble (I don't have the book with me at the moment, so I'll have to para-phrase a bit).

1. Feined retreat (Dark Eldar): for most Dark Eldar armies, the advantages given in this mission seem meaningless. Give a single raider warrior squad hit and run as long as it deploys in the center of the board? Uh...no thanks. That'll just get them killed. Then again, a web way portal army might jump at the idea, but I've never seen anyone play one of those before. All the DE players I know use Raider rush.

2. Encircle (Tau): I don't remember the exact name of this mission, but all Tau skimmers that start in reserve arrive from your opponent's board edge. The problem is, I don't see any advantage for the non-Tau player. It seems to only favor the Tau.

3. Warp gate (Chaos Daemons): The problem with this mission is that the 'enemy' (non-Chaos Daemon) units that come within 6in of the warp gate are immediately destroyed. So what's to keep the Chaos Daemons player from using Pavane to drag units forward, to instantly kill them, or pull them into assault so they 'consolidate' within 6in of the warp gate, and instantly die. It's just too prone to abuse, and really hurts armies that either rely on the assault or rapid firing to win.

jsullivanlaw
08-03-2010, 16:48
Feigned Retreat is a *******' joke. I don't know what they were thinking making kill point missions for the army that always runs with at least 20.

the_picto
08-03-2010, 16:56
Perhaps they hope people will still be using the book in year, when the dark eldar have a new and more balanced book.

ScItRiX
08-03-2010, 18:31
Kill team is a blast to play. It does require an FAQ for all the weird interactions but it was good fun. First time I saw Vespid be usefull....

Pushkin
08-03-2010, 19:16
I don't seem to understand everyone complaining about specific flaws in each of the missions: e.g. this special rule means the game is unbalanced/unplayable.

Isn't the idea that you adapt to the special rule, e.g. in Warp Gate, the Demons are actively trying to pull people in the warpgate through pavane, assaults etc where the otherside are trying not to get sucked in?

I mean i know some of the situations are gonna be hard, but wasn't the complaint before always that certain lists kill all. E.g. try using a nobz bikers list against demons in warpgate!

Sorros
08-03-2010, 19:46
Ah, I see. I must admit, I had missed the 6in appart thing ...that would make life interesting for footslogging orks and horde 'nids, one would think!
jt.

I feel like an army that isn't so reliant on working in synergy would do fine, but an army that is so reliant on working together and psychers gets wrecked (pretty much all Eldar lists). I might play around with a few ideas to see if there are any good for that mission. Maybe Wraithwall?

Commissar Bone
09-03-2010, 00:05
It would have been really nice if they would have also given us a way to incorporate this book with Planetary Empires.


This.




And yet two of the senarios in BM allow the use of superheavies (except one actually doesn't). I didn't put them in the book, GW did!

And I am happy designing my own scenarios and victory conditions. How does this alter the fact that if GW put rules in a book, they should damn well work?



This is the problem with (a) core rules that functionally haven't changed in over twenty years and (b) listening to the desires of players who want more/bigger/badder stuff in the game (e.g. super heavies, titans, etc) even if the game was never intended to handle them.

We love to see this stuff, we want it to work, but it's so far out of scale (power- and scope-wise). I think GW tries to accommodate everyone, but it's REALLY straining the limits of what is essentially a skirmish game system.